Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to speak in relation to the annual progress reports relating to water recovery targets. I note proposed section 85AB1(a) refers to a progress report towards increasing the volume of basin water resources that is available for environmental use by 450 gigalitres. The understanding is that the progress report will report on the fact that potentially water will be got through buybacks.

Buybacks are known to be an incredibly corrosive form of water recovery, because we've lived it. People who live in the basin have lived it. They haven't seen progress. They've seen regress when water buybacks have happened. There are better ways of doing it. Water buybacks basically remove the economic fuel of our regions. I wonder how some of those members opposite would feel if a government went into their electorate and removed the vital thing for their economy, because that's what's happening in my electorate of Nicholls in the Goulburn Valley. It's appalling.

The annual progress report talks about 450 gigalitres. The initial Basin Plan talked about how that 450 gigalitres could only be taken if there was no socioeconomic detriment What's happened to the spirit of that? The member for Watson said, 'We've got this thing called the 450 gigalitres, but it requires socioeconomic neutrality.' What happened to that? A lot of people only signed up to the plan—which has taken a huge amount of water out of my region—because there was that socioeconomic neutrality. That was part of the plan. So is this progress report going to talk about the socioeconomic effects in basin communities? Is this report going to talk about what I believe will be incredible economic damage to places like Shepparton? Is the progress report going to talk about what might happen to a business like SPC, which produces processed fruit for Australians and for people all around the world?

Is the progress report going to talk about what might happen to the thriving dairy industry that exports products—and that's one of the reasons why the Victorian government doesn't want this to happen. They understand what an important driver the dairy industry is to their state. But buybacks for the 450 gigalitres are going to smash that industry. So is the progress report going to talk about the progress—or should I say 'regress'—of that industry?

Is the progress report going to talk about what happens to the price of temporary water when allocations are reduced? Some of the speeches from the other side have shown a fundamental lack of understanding about how the water market works. When you take out 450 gigalitres through buybacks, the price of all the rest of the water goes up, and people have to buy that on an annual basis when the allocation's reduced. All of a sudden, their business model doesn't work anymore because the inputs are too high. Farming businesses don't work anymore because the input cost is too high because you remove part of the resource and the cost of the rest of it goes up.

This whole thing, but particularly the 450 gigalitres, is a very sad day for this parliament, and I think the effects will flow on to my communities. We'll feel it first. The progress reports will talk about how much progress there is towards getting rid of the 450. So we'll stop farming, but then it'll flow on to the rest of your electorates because your food prices will go up, or it will be coming in from China. If that's what you want, go ahead and vote for this.

See this speech in context